Kill redundant processes -- load ? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Kill redundant processes -- load ? - Slackware ; Every later installation is slower than the last. Updating is a fools game ? Perhaps removing unused packages will speed up those used ? Or perhaps the unused packages' RAM is just used automatically by used packages ? Does this ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

  1. Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    Every later installation is slower than the last.
    Updating is a fools game ?

    Perhaps removing unused packages will speed up those used ?
    Or perhaps the unused packages' RAM is just used automatically
    by used packages ?

    Does this type of 'exercise' make sense? --log of job:----
    lets try to trim-out some processes:
    pgrep nautilus ==
    2117
    2142
    2290
    2291
    !! after some are killed, a new window/ap. starts & there are again
    4 pgrep nautilus !!

    pstree | grep cup ==
    cupsd
    eggcups
    pgrep cupsd
    1764
    kill 1764
    pgrep eggcups
    2134

    See if this helps to speed-up the sluggish response !!
    --- end of log ----

    TIA,

    == Chris Glur.




  2. Re: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:26:01 -0500, problems wrote:

    > Every later installation is slower than the last.


    Huh?

    > Updating is a fools game ?


    Huh? Are you asking a question, or making a (stupid) statement?

    > Perhaps removing unused packages will speed up those used ?


    Ummmm. No.

    > Or perhaps the unused packages' RAM is just used automatically
    > by used packages ?


    No. Unused packages don't "have" RAM.

    > Does this type of 'exercise' make sense? --log of job:----


    No. Nothing you say makes much sense at all.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  3. Re: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:26:01 -0500, problems sprout:

    > Every "later installation" is slower than the last. Updating is a fools
    > game ?
    >
    > Perhaps removing unused packages will speed up those used ? Or perhaps
    > the unused packages' RAM is just used automatically by used packages ?
    >
    > Does this type of 'exercise' make sense?


    short answer:
    Dont need reason, dont need rhyme, you're on the highway to /dev/null

    > --log of job:---- lets try to
    > trim-out some processes:
    > pgrep nautilus ==

    ....

    anyway, it seems you're trying and do a total remix of previous compilations
    made by the Eternal September Never Ending Circle, please come back with a
    question and its little helpers, usually giving some information about
    the terms and expressions you'll use may help (like defining what you mean by
    "later installation", "slower" (compared to?), and what's "installation"
    doing in the story if that was an "update"???, oooh)

    As you raise up a bell down under while you talk about "removing unused pkgs"
    I suspect you've been ├╝berinstalling different distros and/or versions
    piling up in a cesspool of libs. Please don't, calm down, read a book,
    sell down you deriving license, burn you voting card to ashes and eat a peach.

    HIH

  4. Re: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    problems@gmail wrote:
    > Every later installation is slower than the last.
    > Updating is a fools game ?


    Then don't update. The downside is whether your distribution's security
    group supports older installations.


    > Perhaps removing unused packages will speed up those used ?
    > Or perhaps the unused packages' RAM is just used automatically
    > by used packages ?


    Reading on, I think there's a major terminology problem here. A package
    is a collection of related files, some of which might be programs. A
    process is a running instance of a program.


    > Does this type of 'exercise' make sense? [...]
    > lets try to trim-out some processes [...]
    > !! after some are killed, a new window/ap. starts & there are again
    > 4 pgrep nautilus !!


    Looks like you're running gnome. So a couple of nautilus processes are
    pretty much mandatory.


    > pgrep cupsd
    > 1764
    > kill 1764


    /etc/init.d/cupsys stop

    But then you'll struggle to get any printing done. (CUPS is the printing
    subsystem.)


    > See if this helps to speed-up the sluggish response !!


    I think it's more important to take a holistic view. How fast is the
    system you're running? What processor speed and how much memory do
    you have?

    Have you considered a more lightweight window manager (xfce instead of
    gnome, for example)?

    Chris

  5. Re: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
    On 2008-09-03, Chris Davies wrote:
    > problems@gmail wrote:
    >> Every later installation is slower than the last.
    >> Updating is a fools game ?

    >
    > Then don't update. The downside is whether your distribution's security
    > group supports older installations.



    Please don't judge the distribution by the OP.
    The OP's mail address says a lot, and based on his previous
    postings, he could completely destroy an *anvil* in roughly
    ten minutes.


    >> Does this type of 'exercise' make sense? [...]
    >> lets try to trim-out some processes [...]
    >> !! after some are killed, a new window/ap. starts & there are again
    >> 4 pgrep nautilus !!

    >
    > Looks like you're running gnome. So a couple of nautilus processes are
    > pretty much mandatory.



    Slackware doesn't ship gnome. Whether gnome itself, the packagers,
    and/or other software installed from dubious places is the issue
    remains to be seen.


    > /etc/init.d/cupsys stop



    /etc/rc.d/rc.cups stop <-- on Slackware


    -RW

  6. Re: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    Chris Davies wrote:
    > Then don't update. The downside is whether your distribution's security
    > group supports older installations.


    Robby Workman wrote:
    > Please don't judge the distribution by the OP.
    > The OP's mail address says a lot, and based on his previous
    > postings, he could completely destroy an *anvil* in roughly
    > ten minutes.


    I didn't think I was judging any distribution by the OP. Some
    distributions definitely do support older versions. Some may not. It's
    a factor one should consider if one decides not to upgrade to a current
    release. I ran Debian woody on a box until about eight months ago.
    Security updates were available; new features weren't.

    Chris

  7. Re: Kill redundant processes -- load ?

    On 2008-09-04, Chris Davies wrote:
    > Chris Davies wrote:
    >> Then don't update. The downside is whether your distribution's security
    >> group supports older installations.

    >
    > Robby Workman wrote:
    >> Please don't judge the distribution by the OP.
    >> The OP's mail address says a lot, and based on his previous
    >> postings, he could completely destroy an *anvil* in roughly
    >> ten minutes.

    >
    > I didn't think I was judging any distribution by the OP.



    Sorry, I wasn't clear. That was meant to be *proactive* comment
    rather than an implied criticism toward you. Apologies

    -RW

+ Reply to Thread